Revision petition against interim maintenance order. Court found the amounts non-excessive with no perversity, holding revisional jurisdiction not to be invoked and dismissing the petition.
Revision petition dismissed; stay application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 921 / 2017
Santosh Saini S/o Shri Om Prakash Saini B/c Saini, R/o Sapotara, District Karauli.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Koslesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
28/07/2017
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-921/2017]
the respondent No.2 minor son. The amount is not excessive so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. There is no perversity in the impugned order, hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Arti/35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance awarded by the court below should be set aside in a revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Saini
Smt. Lali
Saurabh Saini
Pankaj Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
